the State Legislature could not divest vested rights, strengthened by the constitutional provisions of New Hampshire, he was sure they could defeat their adversaries.  Thus this doctrine of “impairing the obligation of contracts,” which produced a decision in its effects more far-reaching and of more general interest than perhaps any other ever made in this country, was imported into the case at the suggestion of laymen, was little esteemed by counsel, and was comparatively neglected in every argument.

It is necessary to go back now, for a moment, in the history of the case.  The New Hampshire court decided against the plaintiffs on every point, and gave a very strong and elaborate judgment, which Mr. Webster acknowledged was “able, plausible, and ingenious.”  After much wrangling, the counsel agreed on a special verdict, and took the case up on a writ of error to the Supreme Court.  Mason and Smith were unable or unwilling to go to Washington, and the case was intrusted to Mr. Webster, who secured the assistance of Mr. Joseph Hopkinson of Philadelphia.  The case for the State, hitherto ably managed, was now confided to Mr. John Holmes of Maine, and Mr. Wirt, the Attorney-General, who handled it very badly.  Holmes, an active, fluent Democratic politician, made a noisy, rhetorical, political speech, which pleased his opponents and disgusted his clients and their friends.  Mr. Wirt, loaded with business cares of every sort, came into court quite unprepared, and endeavored to make up for his deficiencies by declamation.  On the other side the case was managed with consummate skill.  Hopkinson was a sound lawyer, and, being thoroughly prepared, made a good legal argument.  The burden of the conflict was, however, borne by Mr. Webster, who was more interested personally than professionally, and who, having raised money in Boston to defray the expenses of the suit, came into the arena at Washington armed to the teeth, and in the full lustre of his great powers.

The case was heard on March 10, 1818, and was opened by Mr. Webster.  He had studied the arguments of his adversaries below, and the vigorous hostile opinion of the New Hampshire judges.  He was in possession of the thorough argument emanating from the penetrating mind of Mr. Mason and fortified and extended by the ample learning and judicial wisdom of Judge Smith.  To the work of his eminent associates he could add nothing more than one not very important point, and a few cases which his far-ranging and retentive memory supplied.  All the notes, minutes, and arguments of Smith and Mason were in his hands.  It is only just to say that Mr. Webster tells all this himself, and that he gives all credit to his colleagues, whose arguments he says “he clumsily put together,” and of which he adds that he could only be the reciter.  The faculty of obtaining and using the valuable work of other men, one of the characteristic qualities of a high and commanding order of mind, was even then